Hearts of Oak Podcast

The Week According to. . . CPT Maureen Bannon

In this episode, Captain Maureen Bannon discuss recent U.S. elections, focusing on the lengthy vote counting in Arizona, and the need for electoral reform. Analysing the incoming Trump administration's potential for accountability, touching on cabinet picks like Kash Patel and Robert Kennedy Jr. The conversation covers grassroots political engagement, an 'America First' economic policy, and critiques on media credibility and corporate accountability.
Connect with Maureen...X/TWITTER      x.com/maureen_bannonGETTR              gettr.com/user/maureen_bannonWARROOM       warroom.org/
Interview recorded   29.1.24
Connect with Hearts of Oak...X/TWITTER        x.com/HeartsofOakUKWEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/

Sonia Elijah - Vaccine Safety in the Shadows: The Fight for Transparency in Public Health

Sonia Elijah, an investigative journalist, discusses her research on the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in an interview on "Hearts of Oak." She reveals alarming statistics from FDA-released documents, including over 40,000 adverse event reports and 1,228 deaths shortly after vaccination. Sonia critiques vaccine trial integrity, highlights concerns regarding adverse effects in pregnant women and infants, and calls out regulatory bodies for their lack of transparency and accountability. She emphasizes the need for thorough investigations into vaccine-related deaths and advocates for vigilance regarding the pharmaceutical industry's motives, underscoring challenges faced by independent journalism amid censorship and misinformation.
 
Connect with Sonia…
𝕏 https: https://x.com/sonia_elijah 
SUBSTACK: https://www.soniaelijah.com/ 
 
Connect with Hearts of Oak...
𝕏 http://x.com/HeartsofOakUK 
WEBSITE https://heartsofoak.org 
PODCASTS https://heartsofoak.podbean.com 
SOCIAL MEDIA https://heartsofoak.org/connect 
SHOP http://heartsofoak.org/shop 
DONATE https://givesendgo.com/heartsofoak 
https://donorbox.org/hearts-of-oak-fundraising

Dan Wootton - Media, Musk and the Future of Freedom in the UK

Dan Wootton - Media, Musk and the Future of Freedom in the UK
 
In this compelling episode, we dive into the UK media's evolving landscape with a prominent journalist who has transitioned from the glitz of showbiz to the gravity of political commentary. The conversation begins with an exploration of the guest's career shift, sparked by the divisive Brexit vote, which highlighted the mainstream media's reluctance to embrace democratic outcomes, pushing our guest towards independent platforms.
 
We discuss the inception of GB News, intended as a conservative counterbalance in a left-leaning media environment, and the challenges that ensued, including the guest's personal battle against media constraints, particularly after hosting a controversial figure. This leads into a broader discussion on cancel culture, where our guest recounts facing repercussions for promoting free speech, drawing attention to the media's uneven handling of controversial discussions.
 
The episode also covers a recent petition in the UK, gaining nearly two million signatures rapidly, as a testament to public unrest with the current government and establishment. This is portrayed as not just a call for electoral change but a deeper demand for systemic reform.
 
The conversation touches on Elon Musk's influence on social media freedom, suggesting a hopeful shift towards more open discourse. Finally, we explore the rise of populist movements across continents, advocating for a grassroots approach to political change in the UK, challenging the traditional political duopoly. 
 
This episode is a clarion call for listeners to engage with their political environment, emphasizing the transformative potential of independent media in an era where free expression is under threat. The discussion underscores the importance of diverse voices in media, highlighting how one journalist's journey reflects broader societal shifts towards seeking truth and accountability in governance.
 
Connect with Dan…
Dan Wootton Outspoken airs weekdays at 5PM UK/12PM ET/9AM PT
𝕏 https://x.com/danwootton 
SUBSTACK: https://www.danwoottonoutspoken.com/ 
YouTube https://www.youtube.com/@danwoottonoutspoken 
 
Connect with Hearts of Oak...
𝕏 x.com/HeartsofOakUK 
WEBSITE https://heartsofoak.org 
PODCASTS https://heartsofoak.podbean.com 
SOCIAL MEDIA https://heartsofoak.org/connect 
SHOP heartsofoak.org/shop 
DONATE https://www.givesendgo.com/heartsofoak 
https://donorbox.org/hearts-of-oak-fundraising 
 
Hearts of Oak:
[0:24] And hello, Hearts of Oak. Thank you so much for joining us once again. And I'm delighted to have someone who our UK viewers will know very well. Maybe the war room posse may not know as well, but you will over the next 45 minutes. And that is Dan Wooden. Dan, thanks very much for your time today.
 
Dan Wootton:
[0:39] So good to be here, Peter.
 
Hearts of Oak:
[0:40] Great to have you and obviously people can follow you at dan wooden is your handle on x on twitter and your outspoken show airs every weekday monday to friday 5 p.m uk time which is noon for you guys on the east coast or for those earlier risers want to watch it maybe in your first hour and work on pacific standard time it's 9 a.m so catch dan monday to friday on that and Now, Dan, there is a lot to discuss about, but I'd love to maybe just start on your background. Your background was kind of in media, but showbiz. It's quite a movement from showbiz, which probably a lot of us now would think is not that important, to now you discussing real issues that affect real people. Tell us about that move from the showbiz background in media all the way now to current affairs.
 
Dan Wootton:
[1:39] Yeah, well, it's interesting, actually, because in the UK newspaper scene, there is this weird transition, actually, where people go from being in tabloids, writing about the entertainment industry, and editing this column called the Bizarre Column at the Sun to then moving into news. Piers Morgan is the most famous example of that. So I guess in some ways that wasn't unusual, but I think for me, it was about why it happened and when it happened. And it happened between 2016 and 2019, when I could see the entire British establishment.
 
Dan Wootton:
[2:21] And the mainstream media, which remember I was a part of trying to overturn the Brexit referendum. So I was associate editor at The Sun and The Sun had campaigned very hard for Brexit.
 
Dan Wootton:
[2:34] And it was over that period that I got my first news show on talk radio, which is now Talk. And over that time, I really did become, I guess you could say, radicalized because I was so horrified and mortified to see the entire mechanism of state work with the media to try and overturn the biggest democratic vote in British history,
 
Dan Wootton:
[3:09] which was the vote to leave the European Union. And then just to give you the very potted history of course we finally get to the point where we're out in january 2020 i decide i'm going all in on this and i take over the drive time show on talk radio in the uk uh from amin holmes so i was on air every afternoon monday to thursday 4 p.m to 7pm UK time and I started the show in February 2020 and we all know what then happened within days so uh by that point I was just utterly furious over the whole course of um.
 
Dan Wootton:
[3:55] Covid and that scandal and sham and that then led me to leaving the mainstream media i guess to to join gb news which i thought was going to be a true alternative.
 
Hearts of Oak:
[4:08] Right that is a whole other story and you ended up again with with emin homes there um but i mean you studied what was it uh politics and media so that was an interest anyway it wasn't doing a an arty course at uni but you kind of were focused on that i came from yeah you did it in new zealand do you see do you see yourself because i sometimes think we have too many u.s guests on i thought oh dan great uk was kind of a bit kiwi as well
 
Dan Wootton:
[4:35] But how.
 
Hearts of Oak:
[4:36] Do you how do you see your identity in terms of
 
Dan Wootton:
[4:38] That it's really interesting actually because lots of people who are by the way always on the left and always everything that they claim that we are so i get lots of people on the left saying to me go back home to new zealand stop talking about british issues what what what do you think you know you new zealander well i actually get pretty offended by that i'm not gonna lie because i'm a british citizen but i'm a dual citizen because you're allowed to be that for americans that's obviously quite a weird thing isn't it because you have to have citizenship of one country but as a new zealander i am absolutely able to be a british citizen but i've been a british citizen since birth, because my father was born on a British Army base in Malta.
 
Dan Wootton:
[5:28] My grandfather fought in World War II. In fact, three of my four grandparents fought in World War II for the Allied forces. And my mom was actually born in Essex, and they were part of this wave of emigration to New Zealand. It was described as the 10-pound Poms, people who were leaving sort of war-torn Britain, the life of rationing to go and set up a new home in New Zealand. But as a result, I had so many British influences growing up, as you can imagine. I ate the Sunday roast and we had our Yorkshire puddings and I watched Coronation Street every night. So it was always my goal to move to the UK.
 
Dan Wootton:
[6:15] Professionally and personally, I guess, I always had such an affinity with this place. And I moved here when I was 21 years old. I'm 41.
 
Dan Wootton:
[6:25] Two now just past 40 yeah that's so disturbing you get to a point where you actually don't know i don't know if i'm 41 or 42 i think i'm 42 and and i've spent my whole adult life here i've chosen to live here but in saying that i have a huge affinity to new zealand i love it but again i find it so fascinating that if you're on the left that's absolutely accepted you know that your heritage can absolutely be part of your identity, but you are accepted in this new place. Whereas with me, it's like, go back to New Zealand.
 
Dan Wootton:
[7:01] But no, I view myself as a British New Zealander. That's a very long answer to your question.
 
Hearts of Oak:
[7:05] You're half and half exactly in terms of time-wise. So from here on in, it's more Brit than New Zealand time-wise. Tell GB News, you were there at the beginning, weren't you? You were one of the first hires. What was that period like because a lot of excitement on gb news it's builders kind of the fox for the uk i guess you could look at it that way um something fresh and exciting to push back on the the legacy media and that's very much to the left and how did that all come about and you've been on gb news right at the beginning yeah
 
Dan Wootton:
[7:41] I was so excited i was the first presenter to be named andrew neil who was the very short-serving chairman had been announced, and then I was the first announcement. So I was all in on this right from the start. I knew that the UK needed a media revolution, and I thought GB News was the vehicle for that to happen. And I actually hosted the first regular show on the station as well, which turned out to be a complete disaster because people who had followed GB News yeah there were loads of technical issues and the channel wasn't really ready to air but while lots of other people moved on i so believed in the mission because it's very odd for american audiences to even wrap their head around this but we had no sort of conservative television whatsoever. Uh, or even by the way, uh, TV news that you could describe as being from the center or the center, right. Everything was liberal. Everything was from the left. And actually a lot of it was from the hard left. Actually the guardian parts of the BBC channel four news, woke eye TV, sly news, as I call it. So.
 
Dan Wootton:
[9:00] I was really a believer, a passionate believer, in the need for there to be a broadcast revolution in the UK. I thought the vehicle was going to be GB News. The unfortunate thing is, again, this is so odd for Americans to even wrap their head around, but we have a government censor. Officially, they're called Ofcom. I call them the Ofcomunists. To begin with, they left GB News alone, really, because we were viewed as a bit of a joke. But what we did was build up an incredibly loyal audience. And all of a sudden, certainly my show, Nigel Farage's show, a couple of other on the channel were number one.
 
Dan Wootton:
[9:39] We were beating the BBC. We were beating Sly News and the ratings. We were doing huge numbers on YouTube. And at that point, there became a mission to silence us, to shut us down. And it's very sad because I say us, I say we, you know, it was like a little family for me and then in ludicrous circumstances i was cancelled because lawrence fox uh who's the former actor turned politician has he been on with you peter yes.
 
Hearts of Oak:
[10:13] We had him on a couple of weeks ago so
 
Dan Wootton:
[10:15] Yes so you guys know lawrence and yes look he's a firebrand he's an absolute firebrand but He came on the show, he was very, very angry about the fact that a woman called Ava Santina, who... There's an awful, hard left, hypocritical woman who is a regular on the Piers Morgan show, Piers Morgan Uncensored from the left, that she had been so dismissive about the need for there to be a minister for men because male suicide in the UK is just out of control. It's one of those national scandals that the MSM just doesn't want to talk about because it doesn't fit their narrative at all, does it? Who gives a damn about white working class men? White working class men in Britain actually are underrepresented in virtually all statistics. So Lawrence was very furious about this, said in quite a tirade during my show that he didn't want to shag this woman. And all of a sudden, you would have thought that I had just gone out on the street and shot an elderly woman. I mean, I was enemy number one. I hadn't even made the comment, but I didn't apologize for it. That seemed to be what my crime was.
 
Dan Wootton:
[11:34] And all hell ensued. And actually, GB News unfortunately gave in to the mob. They gave in to the left-wing mob. They gave in to the off communists. This was ridiculous, Peter. I mean, my show was after nine o'clock at night. So in the UK, there's this thing called the watershed, where basically if you air on TV after nine o'clock, you can do whatever you want. There are honestly, on Channel 4, they have, well, they have people that they would describe as trans women, but they have men with their penises out playing the piano. Naked on television. And that is considered completely acceptable. But Lawrence Fox saying he wouldn't want to shag a woman for political reasons. That was the line that had apparently been crossed. But unfortunately, what happened is GB News gave in to the mob. Their content has massively changed as a result. But for me, I just view it as.
 
Dan Wootton:
[12:37] This incredible sort of opportunity that I wasn't expecting because all of a sudden the US election has proven the MSM, something that I've known for a long time and in fairness have been arguing for years and years and years, just switch it off, turn it off. The MSM is finished. But I mean, the MSM has never been more finished. It's over. It's dead. And here in the UK, we're probably usually about five years behind America. I don't know if you agree, Peter, when it comes to sort of trends, media trends, political trends. And the great thing is I'm now at the start here of what is a true independent media revolution. I'm not the only one. There are other people who are doing it brilliantly, but I'm very excited to be a part of it because what it means is I'm not censored. I don't have the off communists able to take me off air. Or there's this ridiculous thing that america got rid of in the 80s which is sort of like a concept of equal time you know if you have someone on saying uh you know a man is a man and a woman is a woman you have to drag on some absolutely hysterical human being from the far left who tells you that you're wrong so everything becomes a sort of confected performative debate just to please the government censors and i don't have to do that on outspoken at all yeah.
 
Hearts of Oak:
[14:02] I agree and and i i saw you i think lauren i don't think lawrence actually knows what the watershed is but that's a whole other
 
Dan Wootton:
[14:09] Thing look at it oh he doesn't oh he doesn't but but.
 
Hearts of Oak:
[14:12] You seem to be um the wrong
 
Dan Wootton:
[14:14] Party in that because.
 
Hearts of Oak:
[14:15] Lawrence had said something and he said look if i've said something then i should be punished and then calvin got sucked into it just simply for backing you yeah father calvin robinson
 
Dan Wootton:
[14:23] Who's not a regular part of my show outspoken to be honest though this was the direction of travel and that's why i think this is actually a brilliant opportunity for all of us.
 
Dan Wootton:
[14:37] I was very inspired by, over that period, the people in America who had gone through something very similar, I guess. So Megyn Kelly, who was a regular on my show, she came on every week and we became friends over that period of time. She could not have been more supportive. I mean, number one, she quit GB News overnight. She was gone. She had actually been sitting watching the whole Lawrence Fox incident because she was my next guest on that show. And she just couldn't believe it. She just could not believe that this would become a national story and that we would lose our careers from it. So she quit overnight. But not only that, she provided me a huge amount of inspiration in terms of how she came out of her situation with NBC. All of the confidence issues that you go through is anyone going to want to watch me does anyone care should i just retire and just go away gracefully she really got me through all of that so i've based a lot of my show on what she did in america actually with hers but there were other people who were incredibly supportive as well uh like dan bongino and dave rubin have obviously both been a big part of the rumble revolution.
 
Dan Wootton:
[16:02] And so it was a really difficult time because, look, let's just be frank about it, I had not intended to leave GB News when I did.
 
Dan Wootton:
[16:15] However, I absolutely could see the direction of travel. And there's just a complete revolution going on. You don't want to hear from someone who you think could be having their strings pulled. And unfortunately, you know, I've, the thing is I know about the mainstream media, Peter, because I've worked in the mainstream media and the whole reason I've been cancelled from the mainstream media is because I wasn't prepared to
 
Dan Wootton:
[16:40] play by the rules and I wasn't prepared to do whatever my billionaire boss has told me to do. But trust me, there are limitations if you're part of the mainstream media there are things that you know you just can't talk about because rupert murdoch doesn't want you to or one of the billionaire owners of gb news doesn't want you to and for example um.
 
Dan Wootton:
[17:06] There are some shocking stories in the UK at the moment that I have covered massively on my show since we launched in July. So we launched on July 5th, the day after the UK election. And obviously this has turned out to be a seismic election because the UK's effectively been taken over by socialists, which I knew was going to happen. And I always knew that this was going to be a really shocking turn to the hard left and free speech and a whole load of civil rights were going to be under threat in the UK. I'd been talking about it on GB News for four years beforehand. So to be able to come back the day after the election was incredible.
 
Dan Wootton:
[17:47] But I'm talking about lots of issues that GB News simply ignores now. They have banned their presenters, for example, from talking about the cover-up in regards to the Southport Massacre or the truth about Keir Starmer's family, which he's kept hidden from the public. So there's a whole load of issues now where I'm like, oh my goodness, there's no way I could be on GB News being told not to talk about this. No way. Or being forced to describe patriots as far right thugs or pretend that you can't even utter the words Tommy Robinson or Katie Hopkins. So I got out at the right time. And I think the bigger point is now, and you can see this from the US, trust an individual because an individual is far less likely to have been corrupted than a media organization.
 
Hearts of Oak:
[18:45] 100 i want to pick on one or two of those topics that you dropped in um but let me ask you last thing on on the media side because um you kind of came across as someone like calvin you could say things but you could say them in a way that you rile people with your words but not with how you put across lawrence and maybe even mark stein or or rougher and they will push more but you seem to have the gift that the calvin said to say it with a smile and this is less even more yeah totally
 
Dan Wootton:
[19:18] I mean and that's the thing i look it's ridiculous the way that father calvin and i were painted in the media i mean honestly it does our viewers know that the way that we were portrayed was completely ridiculous and actually even mark and and lawrence sure they might say it with a bit more force, but fundamentally, they have been proven to be right on so many issues, from grooming gangs to mass immigration to, everything connected to COVID and the vaccines. So, In some ways, I'm sad about the fact that it was all shut down at GB News, where we were there doing it as a little family. But probably it was inevitable.
 
Hearts of Oak:
[20:11] Yeah. Tell me, the two pressures are advertising and Ofcom, certainly in the legacy media. And you went up against Ofcom. And, of course, the advertisers would make decisions. I mean, does that mean in the UK you can't have a legacy media or mainstream media that actually tells the truth? Because there'll always be no pressure.
 
Dan Wootton:
[20:33] A hundred percent. A hundred percent. No, no, no. I mean, there's not even any question about this. You cannot tell the truth on the mainstream legacy media in the UK and you are censored. That is just a fact. Everything that happened with Mark Stein, myself, Lawrence Fox, Father Calvin proves that. But I can just say that from having worked in it. Now, yes, I pushed the boundaries more than virtually anyone. And I would do it with a smile, absolutely. And I'd always want to do it as respectfully and carefully as I could. But as I say, GB News, which is meant to be the Fox News of the UK, has not spoken at all about the cover-up connected to the Southport Massacre. That's all you need to know. That is all you need to know.
 
Hearts of Oak:
[21:27] Tell me, we've just had on some of the issues, you mentioned Southport, I'll touch on that. We've had a petition going around, which, as we record, I think is about 1.9 million.
 
Dan Wootton:
[21:41] By the time this is on, we're going to be well over 2 million.
 
Hearts of Oak:
[21:43] But that's in 24 hours. And I watched Jess Phillips, sadly, I know. Forgive me, but you have to watch it. I know. She was on LBC, and she was asked about, what do you think about this petition, having 1.5 million signatures? She goes, well, you'd have to ask those who signed it. that level of arrogance and just refusing
 
Dan Wootton:
[22:02] To understand totally dismissive.
 
Hearts of Oak:
[22:04] To tell us about this petition what that means because when i initially saw it i was like oh it's not going to do anything actually it is a vehicle for people to express their frustration
 
Dan Wootton:
[22:13] Yeah i i was the same as you to be honest so i was watching this initially and i thought oh another petition, why not but actually it's not going to make any difference however this is not a petition this is a people's revolt and they are very different things i mean when you're talking about getting two million signatures in less than three days in a country of 67 million people i mean this is phenomenal and the issue is is that we have a government that is effectively illegitimate because they lied about virtually every major policy issue, point blank lied.
 
Dan Wootton:
[22:59] And actually, they didn't just lie. They lied and then they spat in our faces with the glee in which they immediately instituted their lies,
 
Dan Wootton:
[23:11] treating us all as fools. And then the second thing is the UK has this, I now believe, ridiculous and antiquated electoral system first past the post, Which means a government that actually didn't get that many votes, was voted for by less than one in five of the population, can have such a massive majority in the House of Commons at Westminster that they are able to effectively tear the heart out of this country over the next five years. So this petition will clearly not lead to a general election. It's not about that. It's about saying, the British people, we have had enough. We are sick of this. We are sick of the Uniparty. We are sick of the establishment.
 
Dan Wootton:
[24:03] And we're turning to heroes, free speech heroes like Elon Musk, who is pointing things out going on in the UK in a way that unfortunately very few people are. And he predicted just a couple of days ago that the establishment parties in the uk so that's labor and the conservatives who let's be honest have had a stranglehold on power in the uk since before the world wars he predicted that they will be crushed at the next election now the westminster elite what they do is they laugh and they mock because that's what they do even when you're talking about the richest, most successful man in the world, right? They laugh and they mock. What does he know? What does he know about our electoral system? Our electoral system is designed to stop a revolution, is designed to stop a democratic process actually saying we've had enough of politicians who lie to us.
 
Dan Wootton:
[25:05] But I disagree with them. I predicted before the last election that Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK, will be prime minister in 2029. Now, Nigel was a colleague of mine at GB News. I would count him as a friend. I also would say I don't think Nigel is perfect. There's lots of issues that I disagree with him on. But the point is, he's the only politician in this country who is promising true reform, smashing up this absolute shower that we've had to put up with now for decades, where we're promised that immigration, for example, will come down to the tens or net immigration will come down to the tens of thousands a year. And it's a million. It's had a million.
 
Dan Wootton:
[25:56] And that's just the people we know about. There is an actual invasion of our southern border via the English Channel happening on a daily basis, and they will not even stop that. So I agree with Elon Musk on this. This petition is not going to lead to a general election, but what it is going to show to the world is that you cannot lie to us anymore. You cannot treat us as fools. And we are, as Donald Trump famously said,
 
Dan Wootton:
[26:30] going to fight, fight, fight. And if it's five years, we'll fight for five years. Now, for me, as you know, Peter, I believe that we need to find ways to fight within the system and do it in a way that isn't violent. But I have had people on my show from David Starkey to Father Calvin and many others, Douglas Murray, who predict civil war coming to the UK.
 
Hearts of Oak:
[27:01] I think that's where we're going and i think that the frustration people can sign a petition and they feel trapped because politically at the moment there is no solution we're stuck with this awful government and it's this weird position you mentioned elon musk where elon musk is actually the opposition to the government that's a strange position we'll be in and it's an exciting position where someone of that size and importance is focused on the dangers that we face in the uk can in terms of free speech.
 
Dan Wootton:
[27:32] Well, I just think, thank God Elon Musk bought X because that is what has shifted the Overton window. That's what allows us to feel a little bit more free. I don't know if you agree, Peter, but a little bit more free on some of the mainstream big tech platforms like YouTube, where I broadcast, for example, which was awful during COVID, booting people off willy-nilly for... Stating facts. I think Dan Bongino was booted off YouTube for revealing that masks were a complete sham. I mean, imagine that now. So I think Elon Musk has changed that, has changed that discussion, has hopefully shifted the Overton window. He is allowing us to present the truth about what's going on in the UK. And what he's doing is he is exposing the corrupt and crooked mainstream media. Now, this is something that I've been doing, obviously, within the UK for the last six years. But to have someone like Elon Musk doing it on his platform, it's just a game changer. It's just a complete game changer. So over the weekend, for example.
 
Dan Wootton:
[28:52] Elon Musk asked, why has Tommy Robinson been jailed for 18 months? Why? Now, that is a question that no one in the mainstream media in the UK has the balls to ask because Tommy Robinson is discussed and treated as if he's Hitler. But actually, even worse than Hitler, because Hitler, you're allowed to discuss. You're allowed to talk about his manifesto. With Tommy Robinson, you're not even allowed to discuss if you're part of the mainstream media he is non-personed and that's what has happened to katie hopkins that's what then happened to mark stein that happened to me that happened to honest fox that happened to father calvin you are thrust out of the mainstream media now in the past being thrust out of the mainstream media used to mean to an extent you were finished right, Katie is a force again, because who cares whether you're on the mainstream media? I'd never accept an invite from the mainstream media now. Absolutely not. What's the point? I don't need to go on the BBC to be berated for me to spread what I'm trying to say. And I think so much of that change is down to Elon and what he's done with the ex. No, I agree.
 
Hearts of Oak:
[30:07] And anywhere, and I've known Tommy for a decade and a half. I'm probably known Katie for a decade. But you go with him anywhere, and everyone wants a selfie. There's no anger. And we are given a narrative that these people are hated figures. You spend 10 minutes with them walking down any high street, and they're bombarded for pictures. And it points out that, actually, we are fed lies. We see the danger is that normies, or however we call it, some people, see the world through the prism of the mainstream media, and they're seeing things completely wrong. And I think your show, Outspoken, and many others, gives an opportunity to show, actually, this is the real side. This is what is really happening.
 
Dan Wootton:
[30:54] Yeah, and just include them as part of the conversation. I mean, to try and pretend that Katie Hopkins and Tommy Robinson do not have a role in the UK political ecosystem is lunacy. They do. And even if you disagree with them, you can't just wish them away anymore. And that's what used to happen. And I mean, the lawfare, for example, that Katie had to deal with, the complete, I mean, they de-personed her. it was more than just debanking.
 
Dan Wootton:
[31:30] Katie is very bold about the fact now that she owns nothing, so nothing can be taken away from her. And they tried that with me a lot over the past year as well. They've tried it with Lawrence, but the differences, and this is the change now, it doesn't matter because who cares anymore? I mean, and remember, I work for these newspapers. I devoted my life to them, but I don't give a damn if someone is in the sun or the Daily Mail anymore or appears on gb news that's irrelevant i don't need those platforms to be able to choose who i can hear from because i'm going to choose myself whether i want to watch katie's video on x or uh tommy's interview on you know rebel news or wherever he or maya to see or whichever platform he happens to be uh speaking on so basically the game is up for the mainstream media, and that will help lead to that change. But it's not over. I mean, this is still...
 
Dan Wootton:
[32:32] An ongoing fight in the UK. We are nowhere near as developed in the US when it comes to this independent media ecosystem, which drives the agenda. I mean, it was just fascinating and really inspiring, actually, looking at the Republican conference and seeing who's alongside Trump. And it's Dan Bongino and Tucker Carlson, and who's broadcasting there, Megyn Kelly and Russell Brand and the other people who are important Republicans want to speak to. We're not at that point yet. Politicians here still think that to spread your message, you've got to go on LBC or the BBC. But I have a really strong belief that that is going to change over the next five years.
 
Hearts of Oak:
[33:17] I agree 100 percent. And we are following the US and taking their lead and learning from them.
 
Hearts of Oak:
[33:23] I will be much better for that. And some of the issues you touched on, immigration issue, I think the Tories basically went to the same economic school as Rachel Reeves in terms of working out the numbers coming in. And then you've got the hate speech, criminalization of memes. And this is one thing that Elon Musk has got involved at the utter shock of people posting things online. And yet sex offenders seem to get off with community service. Do you want to just touch on that to give our US viewers a kind of highlighter window to understand what we face in the UK?
 
Dan Wootton:
[33:59] Well, I mean, again, US viewers will not understand this because with the First Amendment, none of this would be allowed to go on. It is utterly appalling and disturbing what is happening here. So Alison Pearson, who's a good friend of mine, she was on my show last week. She is, I believe, Britain's best mainstream newspaper columnist. She writes for the Daily Telegraph, but she's one of the few people in the legacy media who challenges the agenda time and again. And as a result, she finds herself pilloried by the establishment. But a couple of weeks ago on Remembrance Sunday, and I remember she texted me on the day saying, I can't believe what has just happened. Two police officers turned up at her house because of a post on X from a year ago where she had described some Jew haters as Jew haters. I mean, these were people who were members of Imran Khan's political party in Pakistan who have a long history of anti-Semitism and Alison had slightly confused
 
Dan Wootton:
[35:04] which political grouping they were a part of. She thought to begin with, they were part of the pro Hamas demonstrations, which were going on a lot at the time.
 
Dan Wootton:
[35:13] So she deleted the tweet, but that was on a factual basis. She had made a very small error. She hadn't said anything in any way that could be considered incitement to racial hatred. Yet that's what the police, three police forces in the UK, spent a year investigating. Now they have, after an international outcry, including lots of coverage from Elon Musk on X, dropped that, but it took a long time for this to become public. And remember, this is going on every single day in the UK. 60 people every single day in the UK are hounded because of something that they have said online, which is legal. Now, then you look at the rest of the justice system, and absolutely your point stands. And there are some horrifying examples of it, which again, the mainstream media wants to overlook. So a Muslim man called Muhammad Hassan, I would describe him as an extremist, was at a petrol station in Bradford, and he was caught doing this on CCTV. So there was no question about whether he was guilty or not. He spotted three fellow Asian women at the petrol station who were in Western dress, who had assimilated into English society.
 
Dan Wootton:
[36:36] He physically destroyed them. He beat them up on this petrol station forecourt. One of the Asian women, he put her head into the car and he smashed it for 45 seconds. This was all captured on CCTV. He is a woman beater. He beat up three women.
 
Dan Wootton:
[36:59] Muhammad Hassan did not spend one day in prison he was let off then you have Hugh Edwards the face of the BBC the guy who announced the death of Queen Elizabeth II, guilty of making child sex abuse images.
 
Dan Wootton:
[37:24] And being in possession of hundreds of these things He did not spend a day in prison. So you have pedophiles and women beaters being released. Well, not just being released, actually, never spending a day behind bars. Then to make room for people in prison who literally posted on Facebook and X after what happened in Southport where...
 
Dan Wootton:
[37:53] Three young, beautiful girls were butchered to death at a Taylor Swift dance class, a crime which horrified the whole country, and which we still don't know the truth about for a whole load of reasons.
 
Dan Wootton:
[38:07] People who posted something maybe a bit unartful maybe a bit inelegant in some cases probably they even went too far but who made a post on x or facebook over that time are in jail peter in some cases for well over two years so take the case of julie sweeney she's a grandmother and a carer for her husband. She has lived a completely faultless, quiet life in the north of England. After seeing what happened on the Southport massacre, she made one post to a Facebook group of 5,000 people. She soon regretted it. She realized she had overstepped the mark, but she certainly didn't, in my opinion, incite any specific violence against anyone. She has been locked up for over two years for a facebook post lucy connolly a housewife who is married to a conservative party local counselor also in jail for over two years for a post on x after the southport massacre meanwhile and this is actually true and elon musk sometimes points out these stories and people say this can't be true it is true people have been released on the street who are hardened criminals in some cases murderers to make room.
 
Dan Wootton:
[39:34] For these criminals in prison. And it's all part of, I believe, a campaign by this Labour government against the white working classes of the UK. They want to terrify the white working classes into silence.
 
Hearts of Oak:
[39:48] And that's why I'm struggling to understand how you change this from within,
 
Hearts of Oak:
[39:53] because that makes people extremely angry. And we saw the Southport, the demonstrations, whatever you call them, people expressing anger and feeling trapped in a system the police don't seem to be there to help you and i grew up i'm sure you did dan trusting the police trusting the courts that was part of the system that kept us safe now in many ways they seem to be the enemy in how you see them prosecuting how you see people who have been arrested yeah and then you look politically and you have silence from the conservative government um and you've got five or four mps so where we are at the moment so it's understandable that we don't have a first and second amendments we don't have freedom of speech or the right to bear arms. Therefore, oh, what do we do? We can't even meme. So I kind of, you understand where that frustration comes and boils over people thinking, actually, I don't know if the system will work, but you still want to hold within that. And you still believe that actually it is possible to get to where we want to get using the system.
 
Dan Wootton:
[40:55] Well, I think it's the only choice that we have, But I do think there will be a shifting of the Overton window over the next five years, and Nigel Farage and Reform UK are going to have to fill that space, because if they don't, someone else will.
 
Dan Wootton:
[41:13] So I would like, and I do support Reform UK, not as a member or anything like that. I'm completely independent. I'm not a member of any political party, but in terms of my personal vote, I switched my allegiance from the Conservative Party to Reform UK at the last election. So I've given them my vote and I want them to be the force to do it. But if they can't provide that, then another force will come along.
 
Dan Wootton:
[41:42] And right now, I would say they're dipping their toe in the water. They're doing some brilliant things, but they're not going far enough. So, for example, Nigel Farage has said, we'll get rid of all of these hate crime laws that saw Alison Pearson targeted by police. Great, you're dipping your toe in the water, but that's not enough. That's not enough. There has to be a First Amendment free speech, our equivalent. It obviously wouldn't be called the First Amendment because we don't have a constitution in the first place, but there has to be the equivalent of that. It's not enough just to say, oh, you're going to get rid of these hate crime laws. No, no, no. You have to enshrine free speech in British law. So there's a whole load of areas where I think Reform UK are dipping their toe in the water. But remember, we're entering a changed world now. And I do think Donald Trump will send out a lot of inspiration about what is politically acceptable. And we've seen that change from Nigel Farage, even in the past few weeks. He received quite a lot of criticism a couple of months ago for ruling out the concept of mass deportations altogether. And I can already sense that after Trump's election, now he's changing his rhetoric on that issue. So.
 
Dan Wootton:
[42:52] I mean, we knew that Trump's victory was essential for saving the Western world. And I guess, look, there's not much hope at the moment in the UK. So there are a couple of people that we can put a lot of hope in. One is Trump and his administration, because it's going to have to change some of the dark forces and the globalist forces that are doing some terrible things. To the uk and then of course the other is musk so you know we've got to find hope from somewhere at the moment because otherwise this is going to be a very bleak five years do i think it can change within the system yes i do actually but it's going to need a true people's revolt and that's going to be one of the messages on my show today look two million of us have signed this petition imagine if two million of us joined a political force you know we'd be the biggest political force in,
 
Dan Wootton:
[43:50] british history so there's hope i think and.
 
Hearts of Oak:
[43:56] And just to finish off on that point as well i think that hope comes from and i would certainly feel very much like calvin well let's just let's just burn this thing down let's call for revolution but that doesn't always end very well and you're left
 
Dan Wootton:
[44:09] With no how's it gonna work that's the problem how is how is that going to work i think, I think we have to try and make this work through democratic processes, but that doesn't mean working through the system, if that makes sense. The system has to be smashed.
 
Hearts of Oak:
[44:34] No, I agree. And looking at what's happened in the US with Trump, the most important election, I think, in most of our lifetimes because of what we faced, and not only for a country, but for the world. And then looking at what's happening, I mean, you've got the Freedom Party just came top in the Luka election last night in Austria. Of course, they're not allowed to form a government, even though they're the winning party. You've got the election coming up in Germany. Then you've got Orban and Maloney, and you've got...
 
Dan Wootton:
[45:03] Or Le Pen in France. I know. Who they're trying to, you know, again, ban from running through lawfare, which won't work.
 
Hearts of Oak:
[45:13] It won't work, but as they're trying to do in Germany on the AFD. But I think those two pressures for, because I haven't been very hopeful for a while, but actually I think those two pressures could lead to something in the UK. The UK will have to up its act and pressure like that from both sides, I think, will produce good leadership that we can move forward. And to me, actually, the electoral success of Trump and the electoral success of populist parties across Europe, I think, shows that there is hope for the UK.
 
Dan Wootton:
[45:48] Absolutely. Absolutely. I mean, look, there are certain things in terms of our setup that does make it very difficult, but these are extraordinary times. No one believed that Donald Trump would get through the Republican primary process.
 
Dan Wootton:
[46:05] No one believes that a Le Pen will ever be able to be president of France. Well, let's see, because I think as things look at the moment she probably will be so to smash the two-party system in the uk would be a massive ask but these do feel like historic times yeah.
 
Hearts of Oak:
[46:27] I i agree dan i appreciate your time people can obviously follow um outspoken every monday to friday at 5 p.m uk time or midday eastern uh find look at his twitter account or x shows how old i am uh to find it there or even go directly to his website dan wouldn't on outspoken.com dan wouldn't outspoken.com sign up to that and find out everything that happens um and i guess dan wouldn't outspoken or dan wouldn't i guess is the handle for your youtube channel also
 
Dan Wootton:
[46:59] Yeah dan wouldn't outspoken and outspoken is also on now because um i have been looking for a free speech platform and i think sub stack is the best of those outside of x obviously i i'm on it it's very very strong on x but i post a lot of my long form things and we do an uncancelled.
 

The Week According to. . . Rick Munn

In the most recent episode of Hearts of Oak's news review, hosts Peter and Rick Munn delve into several pressing issues facing the UK. They open by addressing the UK government's decision to provide £536 million in aid to foreign farmers, contrasting this with the increasing tax burdens on domestic farmers.
Rick Munn highlights the economic paradox where UK farmers, despite owning valuable land, often lack the cash liquidity needed to manage inheritance taxes, potentially leading to the sale of family farms.
The conversation then shifts to Prime Minister Keir Starmer's economic policies, particularly his partnership with corporations like BlackRock for economic growth. Rick expresses skepticism over whether such alliances will truly benefit the average British citizen, suggesting a shift towards right-leaning economic strategies within Starmer's Labour government. They also discuss the implications of a possible ICC arrest warrant for Israeli PM Netanyahu, questioning the UK's potential response to such international legal actions.
The episode further includes a cultural critique, with Rick commenting on the concept of 'self-partnering' popularized by pop star Sam Smith, viewing it as a reflection of bizarre modern cultural trends. Finally, they touch on national defense, examining the UK's preparedness for conflict with Russia, and how domestic and social issues might be impacting military spending. Throughout the discussion, there is an underlying theme of accountability, questioning the alignment of government actions with the actual needs and values of UK citizens, and a call for a more equitable distribution of benefits from policy decisions.
*Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast.
 
 

Robert W Malone MD - Make America Healthy Again: A Vision for Reform in Food and Pharma

In this episode of Hearts of Oak, Dr. Robert Malone discusses his recent work, including his successful Substack platform, "Malone.News," where he mixes serious analysis with light-hearted content. He talks about his new book "Cywar: Enforcing the New World Order," now an audiobook, and reflects on recording challenges and its reception. The conversation then turns to U.S. politics, with Malone analyzing recent election surprises and his involvement in political events, including support for Bobby Kennedy.
He critiques the current health and food industry, highlighting the need for reform due to corporate dominance, unsafe food practices, and the decline of small farms. Malone expresses hope for health policy changes under potential new leadership, emphasizing the battle against industry lobbying for public health improvements.
*Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast.
PRE-ORDER PsyWar: Enforcing the New World Order     amazon.com/PsyWar-Robert-W-Malone-MD/dp/1510782958
Robert W Malone MD, MSInventor of mRNA & DNA vaccines, RNA as a drug. Scientist, physician, writer, podcaster, commentator and advocate. Believer in our fundamental freedom of free speech.
Connect with Dr Malone.....𝕏                       x.com/RWMaloneMDWEBSITE           rwmalonemd.com/                         maloneinstitute.org/SUBSTACK        malone.news
Interview recorded  3.9.24
Connect with Hearts of Oak...𝕏                        x.com/HeartsofOakUKWEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/

The 1916 Project: Planned Parenthood and Abortion's Cultural War

Hello, dear listeners!
Welcome to another thoughtful episode of the Hearts of Oak podcast, where we dive into the depths of cultural and philosophical narratives shaping our world. Today, we're joined by a guest whose journey into activism and intellectual exploration has been both inspiring and provocative. Together, we'll explore the tapestry of history, politics, and theology that underpins one of the most divisive issues of our time: the sanctity of life. So, grab your headphones, sit back in your favorite chair, and join us on this journey of discovery and dialogue. Let's embark on this conversation with open hearts and minds.*Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast.
Connect with Seth Gruber:X - https://x.com/sgruber91/mediawebsite: https://sethgruber.comSeth Gruber Show - https://amzn.eu/d/5ImkBqyYouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@SethGruberShow
Connect with Hearts of Oak...𝕏                        x.com/HeartsofOakUKWEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/

Fear, Freedom, and Filming: The Truth behind BBC’s Unvaccinated programme 14:27

In this episode, Nazarin Veronica delves into her journey from questioning mainstream COVID-19 narratives to becoming a vocal critic of vaccine mandates and media manipulation. She reflects on her isolation during lockdown which led to skepticism towards official information, resulting in strained relationships due to her dissenting views. Veronica discusses her efforts to spread awareness, like handing out leaflets, her disillusionment with mainstream media tactics through her experience with the BBC documentary "Unvaccinated," where she felt her views were misrepresented to serve an agenda. Post-documentary, she leveraged social media to correct the narrative, gaining unexpected support. Now, years later, she sees slow shifts in public discourse towards vaccine safety but remains vigilant about government overreach and continues advocating for critical thinking and personal liberty.
*Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast.
Interview recorded 31.10.24
Connect with NazarinInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/nazarinveronica/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/nazarin.doodman𝕏: https://x.com/nazarinveronicaTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@nazarinveronicaYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@nazarinveronica1The Audacity Network: https://www.theaudacitynetwork.com/
 
Connect with Hearts of Oak...𝕏                         x.com/HeartsofOakUKWEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/
Interview recorded 11.11.24

Calum Muller: Faith, Science, and the Unborn: A Doctor's Perspective on Life

Welcome to another thought-provoking episode of Hearts of Oak, where today we delve deep into the heart of one of the most contentious debates of our time: the right to life. In this episode, we're joined by a distinguished guest, a medical doctor and researcher who has become a pivotal figure in the UK's pro-life movement.
 
Prepare for an insightful conversation as we explore his transformative journey from a pro-choice stance to becoming an ardent advocate for the unborn, driven by scientific evidence and ethical reasoning. We'll discuss the current cultural landscape in the UK, where despite a prevailing pro-choice sentiment, a new wave of youthful pro-life activism is emerging, challenging the status quo.
 
This episode promises to unravel:
The ethical and scientific arguments for when life begins.
The role of religious beliefs in the pro-life movement.
Why there's a growing disconnect between UK law and public opinion on abortion.
How the pro-life movement is evolving, engaging with media, politics, and church leaders to drive change.
Join us as we navigate through these complex issues, understanding the motivations behind one man's mission to change hearts and minds, and why he believes now more than ever, the pro-life message needs to be heard.
 
This is not just a debate; it's a call to action, a challenge to think, and a journey into the heart of what it means to champion life in all its vulnerability and potential.
 
Tune in, and let's challenge the tide together.*Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast.Interview recorded 31.10.24
Connect with Calum𝕏 | https://x.com/DrCalumMillerWebsite| https://www.calummiller.org/
 
Connect with Hearts of Oak...𝕏                         x.com/HeartsofOakUKWEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/Transcript:
(Hearts of Oak)
And hello Hearts of Oak, thank you so much for joining us once again with a brand new guest, and that is Calum Miller.
Calum, thank you so much for your time today.
Thank you for having me
Hearts of Oak
Great to have you, and of course, I was at the March for Life in the UK, which kind of spurred my thinking, and you're a name that I've seen in many different areas, but actually being at that event solidified it.
So I want to get your thoughts on that, the UK pro-life movement, your background, all of that. But people can find you at Dr. Calum Miller on X (formerly Twitter), and of course, callumsblog.com is your blog.
All the links will be in the description whether people are watching or listening; everything is there, so make sure to make use of those links.
But, Calum, your background as a doctor, you're involved, very involved in the pro-life movement.
Maybe I could just step back a little bit and ask you to introduce yourself to our viewers before we get into the actual issue at hand.
Sure, yes. I'm a medical doctor, and I actually became pro-life while I was at medical school.
So I grew up, like most of the UK, just being pro-choice, at least most of Great Britain, at least.
And I think, yeah, it was being at medical school, seeing the reality of life in the womb, seeing the reality of abortion and its impact on the woman as well as the child that convinced me to be pro-life.
So I still work as a doctor.
I'm also a researcher on the topic of abortion and various other bits and pieces, but that's from an ethical, medical, and legal perspective, whatever it might be.
So I try to look at it from every angle and publish on that. And so I've done quite a bit of academic work on the topic as well.
And then I do a lot of work just speaking and writing about this as well, so yeah, I didn't expect to end up here when I started medical school, but that's what I've ended up doing because I think it's one of the most important things that can be spoken about, so here I am.
Maybe ask you what actually changed your mind?
I want to delve into that, your background, and what kind of led you to that.
But what kind of led up to that?
Because most people, I guess, shrug their shoulders, and they think, you know, if it's people's choice, and you want to do this or that.
People don't really think about it in the UK, I don't think, as much as intentionally as maybe in the US, where there are two kind of blocks on each side, and you have heated, and sometimes even constructive arguments.
In the UK, it just seems to be, "Bleh," just kind of shrug your shoulders.
So, what kind of persuaded you? What led you, as you were studying as a doctor, to the position that actually life in the womb matters?
Yeah, it was a number of things, really.
I think being a doctor, you have to think about it at least a little bit.
That's not to say most doctors think about it much or have a well-formed view on it.
But at least in my case, it was something that came up in medical school.
And so that sort of provoked me a bit more into thinking about what I thought about it.
And then also, you know, reading about it, it was very much academic arguments, you know, thinking through the idea of human rights and equality that convinced me.
I thought if humans are equal, then they have equal rights, and that has to include every human.
And, therefore, the main question in abortion is just: Is this a human being?
And I was, you know, I knew from medical school that it was.
And therefore, for me, it was very simple: that if this is a human being, as science teaches, and if every human being is equal, as most of us claim to believe, then it just follows really logically that we should be pro-life and protect the child in the womb just as much as anyone else. And so that was a big part of it.
I think, you know, part of what brought it up, you're right, is globalization which normally makes people—normally it's sort of very progressive Western values going to other parts of the world and making them more liberal.
In my case, I think globalization took me the other direction to a more traditional view because, you know, I grew up in a very sort of insular progressive country, and it was actually exposure to the fact that most people around the world don't agree with this, and most of them are pro-life, that was part of the thing that got me to reconsider in the first place.
So, yeah, it was a mix of a whole bunch of things: experience, looking at the arguments, but at its core, it was really that conviction about human equality, human rights, and seeing that if we really believe in them, then they have to apply to everyone and not just the people that it's convenient for now.
There are two approaches: at the March for Life, you have a strongly Christian approach in that the understanding of the Bible is that we are made in the image of God, and therefore, everyone has value, no matter where they are or who they are; everyone is equal and has value.
But you've also got, as you pointed out, an ethical argument, a philosophical argument, which is a completely different take on it.
What about you as a Christian, then? How did that affect your approach to this idea?
Yeah, it wasn't actually a huge part of what convinced me because, you know, I had Christian convictions before I became pro-life, and I thought that was compatible.
Later on, I realized that Christianity does have a clear position on it, but it was really the arguments about science and philosophy that convinced me primarily.
And I think one of the striking things in that sense is that the Bible doesn't actually say when life begins exactly.
It talks about conception a little bit, and it clearly respects that there is life before birth. And so, you know, at least at some point before birth, life begins.
But of course, fertilization hadn't been discovered when the Bible was written.
And so when people say, you know, you only believe human rights begin or life begins at fertilization because the Bible says so or because of your religion, it's actually the opposite.
The Bible doesn't mention fertilization; no one in religion mentioned fertilization until it was discovered scientifically.
And it was because of that scientific discovery that Christians said, "Oh, OK, so we knew that life was valuable from the beginning because the Bible teaches that life is valuable from the beginning.
But we didn't know when the beginning was. But now that science has shown us when the beginning is, at fertilization, the Christian position, informed by science, tells us that life begins at fertilization and should be protected from that."
And so I think clearly, you know, I think if you believe in Christianity and you believe in science, then there's no way to sort of support abortion.
But in terms of that claim about when life begins, I think that's ultimately a scientific claim, not a religious one.
And so anyone can agree with it.
And if, for some other reason, say you're not religious, you just believe that all human beings are equal and should be protected regardless.
Regardless, if you believe that and you believe in science, you should also be pro-life.
So religion certainly supports the pro-life position in many cases, but it's not needed for it. And so in my own journey, it was not really connected to religion.
It was only later that I sort of united them in that sense.
Okay, let me see where I go in this, because I want to pick up.
Those are two aspects, I think, and it's interesting your view of being a Christian, and yet not necessarily being pro-life.
I mean, I have a, to me, it's a red line as a Christian that actually we speak up, as Proverbs says, for the voiceless, and who has no voice more than the unborn.
Literally, they're not able to speak, and therefore it is up to us to speak up for them.
So for me, even that Proverbs is enough to actually step up. And if no one comes and says, you know, that's not life because of X, Y, and Z, if there's no argument for that side, then surely the flip side has to be that you speak up for that.
And I have, I mean, I've talked to, I grew up Baptist, now in a Pentecostal church, but talked to a lot of C of E vicars who struggle with this and privately have a view, but publicly seem unable to speak.
And it seems to be a fear of what man may say, as opposed to a fear of God.
I mean, what have your conversations been like with different Christian leaders on actually speaking up on this?
Yeah, I mean, I don't think your experience is unusual, especially as someone who goes to an Anglican church. I think we're all, every Anglican is, humiliated by the quality of our leadership, I think, especially at present.
That's not about my church; my church leaders are great, but I think everyone knows at this point that Welby's a bit of a clown, and no one, you know, thinks he has much courage or credibility.
And so certainly, you know, we don't expect anything remotely controversial or that might upset the sort of powers that be from Anglican leaders, but it's not only an Anglican problem.
You know, the only time I've ever heard abortion preached about in a church, as someone who has been going to church most of my life, was I only heard it once, and that was when I was giving a sermon.
And that was an invitation by a very bold pastor because he wanted it to be preached on, and that's the only time I've ever heard it preached on in a UK church.
So this is a huge problem across denominations.
And I think ultimately there's a vicious circle because, you know, people will not know how to speak about abortion in a winsome way.
So they don't speak about it. And therefore, the next generation or the people in the congregations don't know what to think about it.
And then if they don't know what to think about it, they're even less likely to speak about it in future.
And that just sort of reinforces itself. And so I meet quite, you know, the Christian position on this is about as clear as anything could be.
It's like absolutely clear. You know, the evidence from church history and from the Bible for the pro-life view is as good or better than the evidence for the Trinity, which is like a core foundational Christian doctrine.
And yet I meet a lot of Christians, even otherwise orthodox, kind of Bible-believing Christians who just don't know what to think about this issue.
And that is because of this reinforced silence on the issue.
So, I would say that in some cases, it is just cowardice; in many cases, it's just cowardice, but in many cases, it's because the church leader might want to speak about this but genuinely has never seen it spoken about in a way that is convincing, full of grace, and full of compassion, and you know, winsomeness.
And I think in that situation, at the very least, our job is to present to those pastors and church leaders a way of communicating this message that is winsome, that does make sense, that is compassionate and full of grace and the gospel.
And so, yeah, I think, you know, that once we've sort of equipped church leaders with that, then I think we will see which church leaders have a sort of genuine fear that they're willing to overcome once they're equipped and which church leaders are just always going to be too scared, no matter what you do.
And I think there'll always be a mix of both in churches, but we're hoping that, you know, over time, once people are equipped, they'll be able to speak out more, and that a lot of them will be willing to do so.
I'm wondering, is it a cultural issue?
I remember visiting a church in Houston, and in the middle of the sermon, they emphasized the importance of life.
I’ve seen similar moments in other large U.S. churches, where they pause to discuss that life is sacred, including life in the womb, which they believe God has created.
There seems to be a greater focus on the sanctity of life there. In contrast, you’re right—it's rare to come across that in UK churches.
For example, in my own church, KT, the former pastor once issued an apology during a Sunday service.
This happened after J. John, a Church of England canon, was speaking on the Ten Commandments. When he came to "murder," he paused to say that taking the life of the unborn is also murder.
He spoke about it briefly, emphasizing forgiveness at the cross, and then moved on. That Sunday, the church leader made a public apology in case anyone was offended.
But when it comes to weighing offense against addressing the issue of life, I’d prioritize preventing the loss of life over potential offense.
Is this reluctance to speak out part of a cultural issue—a difference between transatlantic perspectives?
Yeah, I mean, as you say, there are some great church leaders in the UK.
I'm not saying every church leader avoids this topic; J. John is a fantastic example of someone who’s been willing to speak about it.
Vaughan Roberts from St. Ebbe’s in Oxford is another example, and there are others, so they’re not the only ones.
We’re very grateful for church leaders like that.
Even among church leaders who are somewhat fearful of addressing this issue, I think there are two main reasons. One is a kind of legitimate worry—misplaced, perhaps, but still legitimate. The other is less defensible.
The legitimate worry is from those who are genuinely fearful that if they speak out on this issue, they will turn away people who are not Christians, making them less open to Christianity.
Of course, Christianity is even more important than the issue of abortion, if we frame it that way.
So, there’s this worry that if someone is turned off from coming to church or listening to anything we say because of this issue, they might never come to believe in the end.
Their concern is for the most important thing.
While I think this worry may be misplaced, I understand it.
Then, there are others who are less concerned about the evangelistic impact and simply worried about, as you say, causing offense.
The Bible doesn’t teach us to go out and deliberately cause offense, but it does tell us to speak the truth. If the truth offends, then so be it. As I mentioned, there are ways to address this issue that are winsome, compassionate, and full of grace.
There are certainly ways of discussing it that lack those qualities and can be genuinely harmful.
But if a church leader is unwilling to even broach the topic in a good, winsome, and compassionate way, then I think there's a real problem.
I would say the U.S. has less of an issue with this, but it’s still present.
Many pastors there avoid discussing it, and there is a lot of confusion. Globally, one might expect church leaders in conservative regions to be more vocal, but even then, the response is mixed.
For example, in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa, church leaders are very vocal, clear, and forthright about this issue, without fear or hesitation. In parts of the Caribbean—though not everywhere—even where abortion is mostly illegal and Christianity is widespread within a traditional culture, there is often significant hesitation among church leaders to address it.
So, even in traditionally conservative cultures worldwide, the response is mixed."
Okay, let's look at legislation.
Every country will be different, of course. In the UK, there has certainly been a push to extend access to abortion up to birth, depending on certain circumstances.
In contrast, as you look further east in Europe, abortion tends to have more restrictions.
We also have the issue of buffer zones.
Could you update the viewers and listeners on the current situation regarding abortion in the UK?
Yeah, so in the UK, we have a law that, in practice, allows abortion for any reason up to 24 weeks, or six months.
By this point, the baby is quite developed; they’re viable from about 21 to 22 weeks and could survive outside the womb without their mother.
The baby is able to feel pain, has a heartbeat, brain waves, can taste food, and so forth.
They’re very much developed, yet the UK allows abortion up to six months.
If the baby has a disability, the law permits abortion until birth.
Although it specifies a 'serious handicap,' initially intended for life-limiting conditions—where, for example, the baby might only survive a few days—in practice, nearly any disability can justify abortion until birth.
We know of cases where abortions for Down syndrome, for instance, have taken place in the 8th or even the 9th month in the UK.
It’s also important to clarify that, technically, abortion is not fully legal for any reason up to six months.
The law specifies that it’s legal to protect the physical or mental health of the woman. Originally, this was meant to be fairly strict, requiring two doctors to genuinely assess that carrying the baby to term would pose a significant mental or physical health risk.
However, in practice, you might go to the doctor—or sometimes only a nurse—and say you don’t want a baby.
If you indicate that this would cause you emotional difficulty, that counts as a mental health reason, qualifying you for an abortion.
So, in theory, we only have abortion for health reasons or for disability in the UK, but in practice, it’s permitted for almost any reason up to six months.
This is much more permissive than in most of Europe, where abortion is usually allowed only up to 12 weeks, if at all.
For example, Germany has a 12-week limit, and I believe some Scandinavian countries, like Norway and Denmark, also have similar 12-week limits.
Sweden’s limit is 18 weeks, and, as everyone knows, Sweden is considered one of the most progressive countries in the world.
Even they have a limit at 18 weeks, while in the UK, we’re a month and a half beyond that. This makes us an outlier—not only globally but even within Western Europe—as we are far more extreme.
That’s why over 70% of women in the UK believe the law should be stricter than it currently is.
Despite a population that is 95% pro-choice, most people recognize that our law is far too extreme and believe it needs to be tightened
I mean, does the law state when life begins? Because that's what it boils down to. In the UK, if you talk to liberals—or even family members, as I have—they seem to believe the birth canal somehow bestows the properties of life. The moment a baby passes through that point, it’s alive, but 20 seconds before, it’s not.
I think that’s not really a scientific definition of when life begins; it's more of a positional argument rather than one grounded in the actual question of life.
So, in the UK, is there any definition of when life begins? Because that seems to be the central issue.
Yeah, not really.
I mean, in terms of when a child is fully protected, it would be when birth is complete.
There has actually been a bit of legal debate about partial birth abortion, which is when the baby is half delivered.
You deliver the legs and body, and then the head is still just inside the birth canal, and an abortion is performed at that stage of pregnancy.
It’s absolutely barbaric and grotesque, but it seems to be legal in the UK.
So even halfway through delivery, it appears that an abortion can still be performed, meaning that the baby is not considered a full legal person who is protected at that point.
The law does actually define pregnancies in two different ways.
When measuring the time limit for abortion, it states that it is up to 24 weeks.
This is actually measured from the last period of the woman, which is two weeks before conception.
In that sense, it doesn't define pregnancy as beginning at conception; instead, it says pregnancy begins two weeks before conception, at the last period.
However, when defining what abortion is versus contraception—what's the difference between contraception and abortion—the law defines pregnancy as beginning at implantation, which occurs a week or two after conception.
The reason for this is that there are forms of contraception that act after fertilization, technically causing very early abortions.
This makes doctors and contraceptive manufacturers very unhappy because it means they would be subject to more regulation.
Therefore, they prefer to classify all of these drugs as contraceptives, since the law is less strict about contraceptives.
So, in the UK, the law defines a legal person as only being recognized once birth is fully completed.
And it defines pregnancy in two different ways: either from the last period or from implantation, neither of which is conception, which is the scientifically accurate beginning of life.
So, the law in the UK is a total mess; it's completely contradictory and inconsistent.
All I can say is that while the law might not define it clearly, if I were asked in my medical school exams when a human organism begins, I would say that it starts at conception.
There's only one answer that would be remotely acceptable, and that would be fertilization.
That's the scientifically obvious answer.
I mean, how is it that someone can go through the medical field?
I went through aerospace, so it’s very different.
But in the medical field, how is it that someone decides to become a doctor?
They must have the intellectual ability and, more importantly, the desire to do good; they want to help.
That’s what they want to do in their career.
I scratch my head thinking about someone who decides they want to be a doctor. What do you want to do?
Well, I like to kill babies.
Is that really an option on the list of motivations?
How does someone move from wanting to help people to that being a part of their profession?
As someone in a non-medical field, it’s quite confusing.
Yeah, I think part of the answer is that doctors themselves and some of the public have an unreasonably inflated view of doctors.
You know, a lot of doctors do a lot of what they do for goodwill and get into it with good intentions.
But it's also a highly prestigious career that earns a decent salary; there are many reasons why people want to be a doctor other than because it helps people.
And to be honest, if you really want to help people, there are much more effective things you can do.
You could go into banking, earn a lot of money, and then donate it all; that would actually have an impact hundreds or thousands of times bigger than being a doctor.
So, that's not to say all doctors are just in it for the money and the prestige, but there's a lot of that, and there's certainly a lot of pride in the medical profession.
So, I don't think we should just have this view that doctors are just saintly people.
They might be better than average morally, but that's not saying much, and certainly not all of them are better than average.
In terms of the ones who might get into it for reasons of goodwill and good intentions, I think it's best reflected by there's a paper on second-trimester abortion.
by what's her name, Lisa—I've forgotten her surname, I'm afraid—Lisa Harris, I think it is, and she writes a paper on second-trimester abortion, and she says we need to stop being dishonest about this; this is, in some ways, a horrendous procedure.
And she describes it; she talks about, for example, when she was doing an abortion and she pulled the legs off the baby, and at the same time, she felt her own baby kicking inside of her because she was pregnant while she was doing this abortion. And she said, like, tears were flowing down her face, and this sort of thing.
It was a very visceral experience.
And so, she's, in that sense, quite open and honest about what abortion involves, and she even says explicitly in that article that abortion is violence.
She doesn't hold back; she says abortion is clearly violence, but she says it's an even greater violence to force women to stay pregnant against their will.
And so, I don't know if every abortion practitioner thinks of it that way.
Probably not.
Probably many of them are in total denial and just try to sort of deny the fact that they're doing anything violent.
They're probably just trying to treat it as no big deal.
But when you get an honest doctor who really knows what they're doing and still does it, I think that has to be something like the justification that they think, "Yes, of course, this is violence, and it's horrible, but it's even worse to force a woman to stay pregnant, and therefore, it's the lesser of two evils."
So that's how some people would think of it, at least.
I want to get your kind of view on the pro-life movement in the UK.
You've been very heavily involved in campaigning for that, being a high-profile activist, and you emceed the March for Life event a couple of weeks ago, a couple of months ago in London.
And I'm embarrassed to say that was the first one I attended, and I attended the seminars in the morning and then went for the march in the afternoon to Parliament Square. But 10 years of that, do you want to give us an insight?
I mean, half of our viewers are US viewers; I think it'd be good for them to also understand what the situation is in the UK, what your experiences have been being involved in the pro-life movement, trying to win the public over, win public support, win political support, engaging in the media.
Give us an insight into what that journey has been like.
Yeah, so I certainly wasn't there from the beginning of the March for Life.
I've been maybe three or four times now to the UK march, a few times in other countries.
I'm told that it began very small; I think it began with just a couple of dozen people in Birmingham about 10 years ago, and then, really incredibly, it has expanded to thousands and thousands in London now.
I know other countries do it a bit differently; they do hundreds of marches across the country.
So every country does it a bit differently.
We have a big one in London each year, and it's been incredible to see how that's grown over the years and how many young people are involved.
It's not just some fading generation that's gradually losing momentum and losing ground. If you go to the march, it's absolutely full of young people, and I think it's growing each year.
And so, yeah, that's been hugely encouraging.
And I think it's interesting because what the abortion lobby is trying to do is to say that this is a settled issue, it's a decided issue, and that there's no room for debate.
And they could probably get away with that for many years because there wasn't really much pushback for a good long time.
And now, I think we're at the point where sort of teenage and young people's rebelliousness is actually getting, you know, the new conservatism is actually being pro-life.
That's the thing; we've had in this country for 50 or 60 years, and people who want to sort of grow up questioning things and going against the establishment are increasingly recognizing that the establishment and the older generations are pro-abortion and that they're trying to maintain that at all costs.
And so, I think there is an increasing generation of young people that are beginning to ask questions.
And naturally, the establishment's getting very nervous about that and trying to shut it down and pretend there's nothing to debate.
And so, yeah, I'm excited about what the next few years might show.
There's some polling, and I don't know, it's a little bit mixed, but there is some evidence that the youngest people in the UK are the most pro-life.
That's not to say the majority are pro-life; it's still tough being a pro-life person at university.
But it does seem to be that the youngest generation is more pro-life than any other, and so our hope is that this will build over the next few years, and hopefully, we'll be able to have even more significant conversations about what is really good for women, what is really good for children, what is really good for society, especially as we see the costs of not having any kids—the economic costs and other things. We're gradually seeing that that's going to cause huge economic problems.
I don't know if anyone in my generation is actually convinced they're going to get a pension when they're in their 60s or 70s. I'm certainly not.
And that's because we don't have enough kids.
And so, I think as those problems increase and get worse, and the economic reality of that hits home, I think a lot of people will be wondering, did we make some mistakes when it came to suppressing childbearing, breaking up families, and encouraging people not to have them?
I mean, isn't it, and I was really pleasantly surprised by the number of certainly younger people at not only the event at the beginning of the day but also in the march.
And you realize there is hope when you see that, a different generation actually standing up for life.
But I mean, in every generation, faces its own issues, and in this generation, it's an issue of it's about me; it's about putting off having children later in life, putting off commitment, actually zero commitment; kind of do what you want.
And that different, I guess, focus on life is more on the individual as opposed to collective, much less responsibility towards society, and much more on "I can do what I want, and screw the world" type of thing.
That is a difficult concept to bring into this, which is about thinking of others, so how do you kind of marry that with this maybe a more selfish attitude to this issue, which has to be selfless because you're thinking of someone else.
It's tough.
And, you know, there are arguments that abortion is bad, even if you're self-interested.
You know, the mental health evidence is quite clear that if a woman has an abortion, she's more likely to be anxious, more likely to be suicidal, and more likely to do drugs and alcohol and all sorts of things.
So even from a selfish perspective, abortion is bad for women and for people making that decision.
On the other hand, you know, those arguments haven't persuaded so far. Maybe that's because the establishment sort of denies that evidence, or maybe it's because people just aren't motivated in that moment by theoretical knowledge of what their mental health might be like in the future.
It's more of a panic decision. It's more of a, you know, freaking out.
"My life's going to be over as I know it," and I just have to get rid of this and change this situation.
I'm not thinking about, you know, potential mental health outcomes 20 years down the line.
I don't know which of those is the reason that those arguments haven't persuaded. But for that reason, it's always going to be a challenge in a culture that is primarily about the individual and about doing what you desire and what you want, forgetting about your responsibility to others and the need to care for others.
I think it will always be challenging to get rid of abortion in that context. So we don't really know how to solve it in that sense.
We're hoping that people will wake up. Of course, there is a significant sentiment of helping others; you know, some people call it social justice, while others refer to it by different names.
However, this sense of societal responsibility among young people isn't completely dead.
They can be very selfish in some respects, and then the next week they’ll spend all of their time at a protest for something that helps society—or at least something they think helps society—in some way. Some of that, I'm sure, is grandstanding; some of it is virtue signaling. However, I think a lot of it is genuine sympathy.
I believe that when people spend their Saturdays marching for Palestine, whatever you think of that issue or whoever you think is in the right, many of the young people in those marches genuinely believe that there are people suffering and that it is their responsibility to spend some of their valuable time speaking for them.
And so, in that sense, the sort of societal duty and that sense of duty is not gone; it’s just very selectively targeted nowadays.
There's not a general sense that with everyone around me, with my family, with my neighbors, and with my society, every decision I make has to be something that contributes to them and their flourishing.
It's more like, okay, in most areas it's all about me, and I should do what makes me happy and follow my heart.
But then there are some things that are just so bad that I have to, you know, give a bit of my time to.
I think it's just much more targeted in that way rather than a complete sense of, you know, irresponsibility.
So the question is, how can we challenge the sort of channel those remaining desires to do good and to show that they apply to all of society and all of life, and not just to a few select issues?
I think once we are able to build that sort of virtue and responsibility in a more global sense, then we might be in a better position to fix this issue as well.
How do you look at this from a campaigning point of view?
There are many angles you could take, and where you focus is important.
Do you look at the media and push the message through that?
Do you focus on MPs in the political sphere?
Do you look at the church and engage with it?
There are many aspects you could consider using for influence.
So how do you see the movement, the breakthrough, or the focus for you personally?
Yeah, I think it's always going to be a mix of those.
I think any societal movement requires getting all the different sectors on board.
Even if you look at, you know, people pushing the other way, even when it seems hopeless—in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa, where almost everyone is pro-life, the abortion industry globally will still target politicians, doctors, the media, and even church leaders.
Even though they know that almost all the church leaders are against them, they will try to get church leaders on board with them just so they can say this is not an issue where, if you're Christian, you're pro-life, or if you're Muslim, you're pro-life.
You can be a Christian or a Muslim and still support abortion, and therefore try to shift the population that way.
So, I’d say it involves all of them.
But I think the thing that has struck me about public opinion on abortion and how pro-life movements have succeeded around the world is that it is very, very difficult for a pro-life movement to succeed without having, at the very least, a core base of enthusiastic supporters among Christians or Muslims.
I think that's just the reality.
You know, if you look at the U.S. pro-life movement, yes, 25 percent of atheists in America are pro-life, according to polls.
And that's significant; that's a lot of people who are totally non-religious and pro-life. But when you look at people who are actively engaged in pro-life campaigning or volunteering at a pregnancy help center, or whatever it might be, the overwhelming majority of them—about 99 percent—are Christian.
There are some exceptions; obviously, that's why it's only 99 percent. I have some great atheist friends. F
or example, Monica Snyder, who runs Secular Pro-Life, does a fantastic job. Everyone's convinced she's secretly a Christian, and I can tell you from knowing her that it's far from the case.
There are great people like that, but the reality is that 99 percent of pro-life people who are actually doing something in the U.S. are Christians. Therefore, it's very difficult to even make a start unless you have a core group of Christians who are willing to take action.
And so, you know, we can still affect the politics.
At the moment in the UK, they're trying to legalize abortion up until birth.
Even without the church being engaged, some of our groups working in politics have been able to stop that.
And so I'm not saying we should just forget everything until we have the church on board, because we can do a lot even without them.
But I think in order to make really significant change long term, I think the place to start has to be the church because that's where people are going to get involved and get motivated and actually do something
All right, I’m always curious about the different aspects of the transatlantic issue and how they engage with it in the U.S. versus the UK. I’ve been confused by being accused by different CV vicars of being “one of them”—one of those Americans who spread hate against the women who are coming in.
I know I’d just like to offer a different solution or even pray.
In the UK, we’ve got a horrendous situation where silent prayer is now illegal in many areas, including a place that was likely the first to institute this ban, which I could walk to in about 30 minutes.
Sadly, my MP has been one of the most vocal advocates for criminalizing anyone who may dare to pray around an abortion clinic.
How in the UK have we reached the point where praying to God in certain areas is illegal?
Silent prayer is remarkable.
I should say that if a CV vicar is saying it, then it's probably not true; you're probably doing a decent job.
I think this is an area that fascinates me because I hear a lot of Christians in the UK saying, “Look at these Americans; they don’t actually do anything to help women,” or whatever.
However, if you look at the numbers in the American pro-life movement, the overwhelming majority of it consists of practical pregnancy centers supporting women.
It's probably about 90% of the pro-life resources in the U.S. There are 3,000 of those centers, and on average, they have about 28 volunteers and five full-time paid staff.
Of course, all of those salaries are coming almost entirely from charity and private giving.
And so, you look at the American pro-life movement and what the American church is doing, and it’s overwhelmingly supporting women practically.
Then you ask those same Christians in the UK who are criticizing the Americans for being hateful and political what they are doing for women in crisis pregnancies.
The answer is almost always absolutely nothing.
It’s astonishing; I guess it’s just a false narrative that the media has spread about American pro-lifers.
Sadly, even many Christians in the UK have adopted this narrative without becoming educated about the facts or getting to know anyone in America who is involved in this.
I think part of our job is to educate people about, firstly, what the American pro-life movement is like, and secondly, how churches can get engaged here to do something similar.
We need to show that we’re not crazy, fanatical hate preachers; we actually just want to protect women and children.
That’s all it’s about.
So, yeah, we’re obviously in a very difficult position in the UK with these censorship zones.
I’m told that the guidance is just being released, indicating that it might not actually be illegal to pray silently.
However, that doesn’t sound like much of a consolation; it’s still not necessarily permissible to pray silently.
I’m sure this change is due to some of the great campaigning work that has been done on this issue by many organizations.
And so, you know, there’s still room for fighting on this issue. We don’t know where the boundaries of the law are.
It’s obviously a complete farce; there are so many basic civil liberties being violated here—not just freedom of religion but also freedom of conscience, freedom of thought in some cases, freedom of speech in some cases, and freedom of assembly.
What’s crazy is that when you look at the way this law was introduced with the bill about protests in general, all of the far-left and progressive groups said, “This bill is absolutely draconian. It limits all of these civil liberties.
The government is absolutely authoritarian,” and so on.
Yet, the form of protest or assembly that was most limited was outside of abortion clinics, and they actually supported it.
So it was just a case of not only hypocrisy but also, in reacting to the whole bill that way, they were conceding that yes, this is absolutely draconian, crazy, and a gross violation of civil liberties.
The government even admitted this. They said, “We think that this section of the bill does violate the Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act.”
It wasn’t put there by the government; it was added by a Labour amendment that received enough votes.
They acknowledged that this violates human rights, but they still supported the bill as a whole.
So everyone agreed that some part of this bill violated human rights.
The government said that the abortion part violated human rights, and the left said that the whole bill violated human rights.
There should have been an overwhelming consensus that this particularly draconian part of the bill was absolutely crazy and authoritarian.
But sadly, that’s the part that has somehow managed to gain the most support because, ultimately, it’s not liberal democracy that most of these people care about; it’s preserving their own civil liberties rather than everyone’s.
That’s, unfortunately, how we’ve got here, because we’ve lost.
We’ve lost the ability to understand politics in a genuinely liberal sense.
It’s only about putting forward your own point of view and protecting your own liberties or the liberties of certain special interest groups.
There are very few people nowadays who understand the need for civil liberties and why they have to apply to everyone, even if you don’t agree with them.
I think it’s really just a failure in civics and a failure in education about what liberalism actually is that has led us to this point.
Oh yeah, and part of this slide is the move towards assisted suicide, which is very much part of the conversation in the UK.
You’ve got abortion, which has been legal since the 1967 Act, and now they’re looking at end-of-life issues.
There seems to be a full-on attack on life, suggesting that if you’re young, you don’t have value, and if you’re old, you don’t have value either.
They talk about putting protections in place, but we’ve seen in Belgium that if you’re a teenager and you feel a bit down one day, the question becomes, “Would you like to end your life?”
Canada has similar proposals, and whatever safeguards our politicians seem to discuss, they won’t be effective once the bill is in place; loopholes will inevitably be found.
We seem to be in a massive push in the UK towards ending life, as evidenced by the assisted suicide bill currently being debated and pushed through Parliament.
I think so.
Yeah, maybe 30 years ago, when the Netherlands was one of the only countries that allowed assisted suicide, you could have argued that the Netherlands has done it badly and has experienced a slippery slope.
But we can do it better; we can implement real safeguards and have a much stricter law that is better regulated.
When I hear people say that now, after seeing the Netherlands, Canada, Belgium, Oregon, and all these other places, honestly, all I can do is laugh.
I don’t think anyone at this point seriously believes in their heart that you can implement significant safeguards for euthanasia and prevent the slippery slope.
If you do believe that, you’re completely delusional and know absolutely nothing about how this has gone every single time in other countries.
Thirty years ago, you could get away with that sort of naivety, but if you have that same naivety today, you shouldn’t be in politics; you shouldn’t be speaking about politics.
So, yes, I think it’s clearly very, very dangerous.
I’ve been a little bit encouraged—I’m rarely encouraged by politics in the UK—but in this case, I’ve been pleasantly surprised by the genuine debate happening in Parliament.
It’s not just a matter of one special interest group getting their way; it’s not just about Labour or Conservatives following their lobbyists.
We’ve seen significant figures in the Labour government, who would typically support legalizing euthanasia, actually opposing it.
We have a Labour health secretary and a Labour justice secretary who have both come out in opposition to it, apparently to the great concern of the Prime Minister.
And that's been hugely encouraging—that these very far-left progressive politicians, whom everyone would expect to support euthanasia, have not only stayed silent or abstained but have actually come out vocally in opposition to it.
Of course, this means that there's a real chance of us succeeding.
If we can succeed with a Labour supermajority, and even in that situation protect life, I think that will set a significant and important precedent for hopefully many years to come.
We would have convinced enough of society that this is genuinely a very bad idea, regardless of ideology.
Hopefully, this can make us more resilient to the continual attempts every couple of years to reinvigorate the issue.
No, Absolutely can I one last point to squeeze in just to find and end with the the industry kind of looking into a planned parenthood see in the u.s seems to be a well-funded organization and it seems to be not only ideology, but actually making money through the murder of children.
In the UK, I mean, BPAS and it's part of the NHS, it's not private and therefore it doesn't seem to have the same ability to make money.
So it seems to be more ideological.
Maybe we can end on that note, as there are very different pushes toward abortion.
For me, it seems as though, in the US, it is a money-making scheme, while in the UK, it doesn’t seem to have that same incentive. Is that a fair assessment?
I think it certainly can make huge amounts of money anywhere, and that seems to be the trend.
I mean, globally, there are tens of millions of abortions a year, so that creates a huge market for, in many cases, an expensive medical procedure.
There’s a significant amount of money that can be made from this.
Of course, it's tied to other money-making industries, which are often even bigger, like contraception, as well as promoting that to teenage girls.
I’d say it’s all part of one industry—the global sex industry—which is connected with pornography, prostitution, contraception, sexually transmitted diseases, and abortion.
All of these elements go together, and because sex is a big part of life, most people, at some point, have sex; many people have a lot of sex.
Therefore, there’s a significant amount of money to be made from it.
Inevitably, even if some activists aren’t doing it for financial reasons, I think it’s likely that this will be hijacked by those who are.
Industries and corporations have strong financial interests in being involved in it in some way.
Absolutely, it's a significant factor in the UK and the US. One of the most significant developments is the move from surgical abortion, which requires seeing doctors in person and having the procedure performed by trained professionals.
Now, what they’re doing is essentially having you call the abortion clinic, where you don’t even have to speak to a doctor.
You answer a few set questions, and I imagine they will probably start using AI for this before too long.
Then you receive the pills, and that’s it.
This process is far cheaper, and in the end, you don’t even need to have a physical building.
And I don't know if they're still being paid the same amount per abortion, but it wouldn't surprise me.
I'm sure they're still being paid a lot per abortion.
The cost is much, much cheaper as a result. What we see above all in the abortion industry is a desire to cut costs.
We can see that not necessarily by what they say, but by what they do.
Their actions are clearly intended to cut costs dramatically.
I’d be very surprised if they were just as happy to see their income cut just as dramatically.
So, while I don't think money motivates everyone pushing for abortion, that’s not the point.
We’re not claiming that everyone who supports it is just interested in financial gain; we’re saying that once it becomes normalized, legalized, and a big part of society, it will be hijacked by groups who do want to make a lot of money from it—groups like MSI (Marie Stopes International), groups like Bypass, and others.
They are making a lot of money.
You can see how much their CEOs get paid; for example, I think Marie Stopes’ CEO gets paid £200,000 a year, with a £200,000 bonus.
I believe he is one of the highest-paid charity CEOs in the UK.
So, while it’s not about money for everyone, there is a lot of money involved, and it is about money for a lot of very powerful people.
Calum Miller, I appreciate your time today on this huge topic, which is not a contentious topic at all; it's simply a matter of common sense regarding life and standing up for the voiceless.
I have great respect for what you do in championing the case of the unborn and speaking up for them when, often, we find that many in the media and the political realm don’t.
Thank you for joining us and giving us an update on the situation in the UK and your work. Thank you, Calum.
Thank you, and yeah, just thanks to your listeners.
I would say: get involved! Don’t just sit there being pro-life; go to the March for Life, which is such an easy thing to attend.
It’s usually every September, so it’s a while until the next one, but put it in your diary and plan to go to that in London.
Maybe get involved with some of the other pro-life groups; there are many around, and I’m sure you can find them easily on Facebook or Google or whatever.
So don’t just be pro-life, but find some way to get involved and support this cause, and you won’t regret it.
And if you follow Calum on X (formerly Twitter), you’ll know when the next one is and any other events. We will certainly promote the next one next year. So, Calum, thank you so much for your time today.
Thank you.
Take care.